Rorate Caeli

Bp. Morerod on why Calvinists, Lutherans, and Orthodox can worship and preach and celebrate sacraments in his diocesan churches - but not the SSPX

Bp. Charles Morerod, OP
in a spiritual trip to the Leysin ski resort with
the diocesan youth movement
In a response to the considerable outcry regarding his stunningly contradictory document (which Orthodox columnist Rod Dreher appropriately mentioned as an example of "the Narcissism of small ecclesial differences"), the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, Charles Morerod, OP, published the following:

I notice that the publication of my January 20 Decree regarding the admission of other religions, confessions, or religious groups in the churches of my diocese has given rise to perplexities among some people, due to the prohibition regarding the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX [SSPX]). Other than responding individually, as I have done in the past few days, I [now] give a public explanation regarding the fact of the publication and one element of its content.

First of all, the Decree that I published was the result of a decision taken by the Conference of Swiss Bishops in September 2011, when I was not yet a part of it. It was, at the time, an updating of the norms of 1999 (that already forbade the use of churches by the SSPX). The text of the Decree was prepared, and its publication left up to the decision of each bishop or Territorial Abbot. It was published, for example, by the Diocese of Sion (along with the Territorial Abbey of St. Maurice) on January 10, 2012, and by the Diocese of Basel (along with [the Territorial Abbey of] St. Gall) on February 1, 2012: Basel and Sion are the dioceses in which the headquarters of the SSPX (Menzingen) and the seminary of Écône are located, and all French-speaking Switzerland is now covered by the same decree.

As for myself, considering that I took part in the dialogue with the SSPX, I did not wish to send a sign that might have suggested that I did not believe in this dialogue anymore, and I waited for over a year before publishing the decree. It seemed to me that the publication could wait, because the content of the decree corresponded, in any sense, to the practice of the diocese for years. If I have finally published the decree, this does not mean that I have lost all hope in the dialogue: if it should have a positive outcome, I would evidently be happy to change the norms corresponding to a situation that would have been changed. Nevertheless, several events have led me to consider the situation serious.

First of all, differently from the Orthodox or Protestants who can use the churches of the diocese under certain conditions and in case of need (for instance, because they do not have a nearby church, or due to works in their own church, this possibility often being reciprocal), the priests of the SSPX present themselves as Catholic.[*] The dialogue with the SSPX is not properly speaking "ecumenical", but an internal dialogue. What is, then, the situation of the SSPX priests in the Catholic Church?

On July 22, 1976, Abp. Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX, was suspended a divinis by Pope Paul VI: all public ministerial act was henceforth forbidden to him. To my knowledge, this measure has never been retracted, differently from the excommunication of the SSPX bishops. It was in this way that our Episcopal Conference understood what Pope Benedict XVI said on March 10, 2009, and that our decree mentions, that is, that the SSPX priests do not exercise a legitimate ministry in the Church.

They are, in fact, priests ordained in an illicit manner, and no Catholic priest whose ministry is illicit - whether or not he is a member of the SSPX - may celebrate in a Catholic church, unless, of course, he be reconciled with the Church.

The difficulty proper to these priests, compared to Orthodox priests or Protestant pastors, is that their ministry in fact contributes - perhaps not in their intent - to divide the Catholic Church from the inside. And it is precisely regarding this point that my anxiety has grown in the course of the past few months. I was already horrified that a bishop of the SSPX had published a book repeatedly accusing Pope Benedict XVI of being heretical (Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, L’étrange théologie de Benoît XVI, Avrillé, 2010). This could nonetheless be an isolated viewpoint that did not engage the Society as such, even if coming from one of its bishops. The same applies to the famous declarations of Bp. Williamson, which was confirmed by his exclusion from the SSPX.

In the course of the past few months, the declarations of Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, have sadly confirmed to my eyes the power of his Society to cause trouble within the Church, and to harm the reputation of the Church as seen from the outside.

I think, for instance, of the sermon pronounced on November 11, 2011, by Bp. Fellay in Paris. I take some points from it:

- Regarding the Vatican II Council - that affirms, certainly, that its teaching is in continuity with the traditional teaching of the Church and is part of it - Bp. Fellay declares: "this council is an agreed-upon decision to do something new. And this is not a matter of just any innovation, a superficial novelty, but rather a profound innovation that is in opposition to, in contradiction with what the Church had taught; indeed, the Church had even condemned it."

- Regarding the mass celebrated after the conciliar reform, Bp. Fellay affirms: "Finally one other condition,, which concerns the Mass this time. We must accept the validity of the new Mass, but not only its validity. We would have to accept also its liceity. ... [...] a black Mass could be valid. ... In citing this shocking example, you understand of course that that is not permitted, that is not licit because it is bad. “Licit” means permitted because it is good. ... Usually we do not even speak about liceity, we simply say about this Mass that it is bad. That is enough."

- Regarding the dialogue, he places it in these terms: "this is the situation. And this is why it is obvious that since June—we announced it at the ordination ceremony—matters have reached a roadblock. It is a return to ground zero. We are at exactly the same point as Archbishop Lefebvre in the years 1975, 1974." Following such an observation, my own scruples are weakened...

I also think of the declarations of Bp. Fellay in New Hamburg, Canada, on December 28, 2012, presenting the Jews as "enemies of the Church". They are associated in this judgement to the Freemasons and the Modernists, described as active in Rome in order to prevent the reconciliation with the SSPX. This description of the Jews provoked a reaction of the Holy See spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, on January 7, 2013, and a declaration of the Conference of the Bishops of Canada of January 18, 2013. These facts reduce the reassuring significance of the exclusion of Bp. Williamson. Among other reasons due to historical drama[tical events] that are well known, the Vatican II Council wished to present the religious dialogue with Judaism in positive and amicable terms, confirmed by the visits of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to the Great Synagogue of Rome. All declaration in a contrary sense by a Catholic Bishop or priest gravely harms the reputation of the Catholic Church, and this justifies the prohibition of speech in Catholic churches to a clergy that is likely to speak in such terms. These are the recent events that led me to leave the patient attitude which I had held since the beginning of my episcopate, since it was since the beginning that I had known the decree prepared by the Episcopal Conference. I repeat that if the attitude of the SSPX should evolve, I will be glad to recognize having been excessively pessimistic.


Fribourg, February 3, 2013
+ Charles Morerod
évêque de Lausanne, Genève et Fribourg [original, in French]

*The Orthodox present themselves as Catholic - in the sense that they think they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. They celebrate the sacraments. And they can be pretty harsh in their sermons - perhaps His Excellency has not heard a fiery Orthodox sermon or lecture, but he can just look around, beyond the platitudinous conferences prevalent in ecumenical congresses. For instance, we would like him to read (or read anew) what Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, former Russian Orthodox bishop of Vienna and current head of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, said at the time of the change of a prayer of the 1962 Roman Missal, as we reported at the time. This is relevant also because it involves an issue surprisingly invoked by Bp. Morerod as a justification for his punitive decree - and we call it punitive because he himself said it does not alter anything in practice, that he waited to have it published, and that he published only as a response to colloquial declarations in sermons, not to official SSPX documents.

"Another divorce which needs to be mentioned is that between theology and liturgy. For an Orthodox theologian, liturgical texts are not simply the works of outstanding theologians and poets, but also the fruits of the prayerful experience of those who have attained sanctity and theosis. The theological authority of liturgical texts is, in my opinion, higher than that of the works of the Fathers of the Church, for not everything in the works of the latter is of equal theological value and not everything has been accepted by the fullness of the Church. Liturgical texts, on the contrary, have been accepted by the whole Church as a 'rule of faith' (kanon pisteos), for they have been read and sung everywhere in Orthodox churches over many centuries..."


"...The lex credendi grows out of the lex orandi, and dogmas are considered divinely revealed because they are born in the life of prayer and revealed to the Church through its divine services. Thus, if there are divergences in the understanding of a dogma between a certain theological authority and liturgical texts, I would be inclined to give preference to the latter. And if a textbook of dogmatic theology contains views different from those found in liturgical texts, it is the textbook, not the liturgical texts, that need correction."

"Even more inadmissible, from my point of view, is the correction of liturgical texts in line with contemporary norms. Relatively recently the Roman Catholic Church decided to remove the so-called 'antisemitic' texts from the service of Holy Friday. Several members of the Orthodox Church have begun to propagate the idea of revising Orthodox services in order to bring them closer to contemporary standards of political correctness. For example, the late Archpriest Serge Hackel from England, an active participant in the Jewish-Christian dialogue, proposed the removal of all texts from the Holy Week services that speak of the guilt of the Jews in the death of Christ (cf. his article 'How Western Theology after Auschwitz Corresponds to the Consciousness and Services of the Russian Orthodox Church,' in Theology after Auschwitz and its Relation to Theology after the Gulag: Consequences and Conclusions, Saint-Petersburg, 1999, in Russian). He also maintains that only a 'superficial and selective' reading of the New Testament brings the reader to the conclusion that the Jews crucified Christ. In reality, he argues, it was Pontius Pilate and the Roman administration who are chiefly responsible for Jesus' condemnation and crucifixion."

"This is just one of innumerable examples of how a distortion of the lex credendi inevitably leads to 'corrections' in the lex orandi, and vice versa. This is not only a question of revising liturgical tradition, but also a re-examination of Christian history and doctrine. The main theme of all four Gospels is the conflict between Christ and the Jews, who in the end demanded the death penalty for Jesus. There was no conflict between Christ and the Roman administration, the latter being involved only because the Jews did not have the right to carry out a death penalty. It seems that all of this is so obvious that it does not need any explanation. This is exactly how the ancient Church understood the Gospel story, and this is the understanding that is reflected in liturgical texts. However, contemporary rules of 'political correctness' demand another interpretation in order to bring not only the Church's services, but also the Christian faith itself in line with modern trends."

Bp. Morerod should then avoid a double standard and also exclude the Eastern Orthodox, particularly the Russian Orthodox, from his diocesan churches: they claim to be Catholic, and can be pretty incorrect and fiery in their declarations. Regarding the clearly irregular situation of the SSPX, the end of the double standards would be a great start. This double standard, the lack of plain equity brought forth by this narcissism of small ecclesial differences, that has never applied to Liberals who have changed, and change everyday, the doctrine of the Church, and even to open heretics and schismatics, but is applied with rigor to the SSPX, has been, in our view, a greater impediment to the solution of this 40-year-old crisis than anything else.

[The discussion on the 1962 Missal prayer change is not to be reopened here under any circumstances. Rorate does not share any of the positions quoted above, which were placed here for informative purposes.]

63 comments:

Fishers of men said...

It may be worth pointing out that Rod Dreher is a fallen-away Catholic who had previously been a Protestant. Let us pray for his return to the Church.

Francis said...

"The difficulty proper to these priests, compared to Orthodox priests or Protestant pastors, is that their ministry in fact contributes - perhaps not in their intent - to divide the Catholic Church from the inside".

So lets see if I understand Bishop Nimrod, oops I mean Morerod correctly: heretics and schismatics like the protestants and Orthodox who have left the One true Church of Christ which is the Catholic Church for centuries and have followed heretical doctrines, been hostile to the Catholic Church and have led many souls to possible perdition by seperating themselves from the Catholic Church are allowed to use Catholic churches for their "services", yet the FSSPX, who have upheld everything Holy Mother Church has affirmed for nearly two millenia up until 1962 are barred from using Catholic churches to celebrate the Mass of the ages because they are trying to divide the Catholic Church from within??!! Only a modernist mind like Morerod and his conciliar cronies could welcome heretics to use Catholic churches (without trying to convert them to the true Church/faith) and deny Catholics the same. Yes, 2+2=5!

Gervase Crouchback said...

I get sick and tired of the Orthodox picking holes in and criticizing every other Christian denomination. Here in Australia they seem to be into sheep stealing ( we call it duffing out ehre) from other denominations and seem to never address the surrounding culture as effectively as the Catholic church does. Perhaps because they are closely aligned with ethn0 nationalism rather than as Christ wants us to be transcultural,cross cultural and intracultural

Richard malcolm said...

This clarifies for me, at any rate, Bishop Morerod's concerns about the SSPX and their ability to celebrate sacraments in churches under his jurisdiction. On its face, his position at least makes sense, whether one agrees or not. And one does sense that he really has largely given up on the hope of any canonical regularization for the time being.

But what incensed *me*, at any rate, about this policy was not so much the SSPX's exclusion, but the *inclusion* of Protestants and Orthodox. The scandal and grave doctrinal misunderstandings that allowing *these* groups to use our churches can scarcely be any less, if different (mostly)in kind.

Yes, I realize that this will chill ecumenical relations. But costs to our witness of allowing this will be much greater. Put it kindly, put it gently; make clear that we are happy to work with these groups in matters of mutual interest and common cause in the public square; but be firm about it.

John L said...

So Presbyterians who accept the Westminster Confession, and hold that the Pope is the Antichrist and that the mass is idolatry, can use Catholic churches and chapels in Abp. Morerod's diocese in case of pastoral need; but the SSPX cannot.

The reference to the Swiss Bishops' Conference decision does not remove Abp. Morerod's personal responsibility here, as this decision is not legally binding on himself.

Jason C. said...

If anything, I think Bp. Morerod's position reflects that he thinks more highly of the SSPX than he does those other groups. If anything, his lumping of EOs and Protestants together is kind of funny because it probably infuriates the Orthodox.

But the Orthodox do not claim to be the Catholic Church, which claim would be rebutted by their very nature, nor do the Protestants; these groups make a claim to be "the" church that is completely different in kind from what the SSPX makes. The SSPX claims either that THEY are THE Catholic Church and "New Church" isn't, having lost that charism, or sort of isn't, having muddied that charism; the SSPX claim is that it is different only in degree from the Catholic Church.

And that claim is dangerous for serious Catholics, the only type of Catholics concerned in this dispute. Thus his excellency isn't wrong--imprudent perhaps, petty even--but not wrong to make the distinction as he does. These three groups differ fundamentally in what they claim.

Claudius said...

Nauseating. At the same time I'm happy to see a bishop speak this way. Let the Vatican II rot become ever clearer. Yes, let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.

MakesNONSenseToMe said...

Apparently if you divide the church outside the church - i.e. call yourselves "Christians" rather than Catholic - but also reject the mass, the real presence, the perpetual virginity of Mary (you are made head of the CDF), you are free to conduct your services and administer your sacraments in the "catholic" church, i.e. VCII welcomes any Christians but VCI Christians.

Tom said...

In 2001 A.D., just prior to his arrival in Greece, the rank-and-file Orthodox clerical union, which represented thousands of Greek priests, denounced Pope Venerable John Paul II as an "arch-heretic" and "two-horned grotesque monster of Rome."

Pope Venerable John Paul II had Eastern Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément compose Way of the Cross meditations.

Olivier Clément referred (not during the meditations) to a part of the Vatican document Dominus Iesus as an "act of blasphemy."

He also said that "I would like to add that the beatification of Pope Pius IX is a disaster for the Orthodox, for he is the man of the First Vatican Council [which proclaimed] the dogma of papal infallibility, which poisoned relations between the divided churches."

Example upon example of vicious anti-Cathlic declarations from the Eastern Orthodox could be cited as countless examples exist.

That said, the Society is suspened a divinis. They could end said status by simply adhering to Pope Benedict XVI's plan to regularize the Society.

It is that simple.

Tom

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

What I want to know is why the bishop is promoting sacrilege by allowing a Church to be defiled by heretical services and yet denying the SSPX the right to celebrate what is undoubtedly a catholic mass, he could impose conditions (I disagree that he should of course) like no homilies etc... or only a private mass, but allowing sacrilege while rejecting the true catholic mass? That's irrational and ultimately convinces me that the SSPX are right, they are marked with the sign of Our Lord, the sign of persecution and 'scandal'.

Joseph said...

"So Presbyterians who...hold that the Pope is the Antichrist and that the mass is idolatry..."

This isn't much different from the slander thrown by many SSPX priests and supporters against the Holy Father and the Novus Ordo.

Common Sense said...

My Lord, there is no way I would refer to you as a Judas, because he was at least an accomplished thief and traitor. By the way, I wonder whether you are good at anything at all, apart from breathing the air and occupying space. At least some of this blog's apparatchiks can handle the sophistry a bit better than you. Your article would be quite humorous if there were not far more serious consequences to the activity which hirelings like you keep procrastinating in the name of the rights of Man.

Romanitas said...

Tom, just "adhering" to whatever Rome is doing or a current Pope's program without even considering its merits put us in our current state. In fact, something conservative and liberal Catholics have in common is that they both think the Pope and some agglomeration of Roman dicasteries dictate the faith and thoughts of the Church. Danger since mid last century has been that good souled Catholics have been too willing to follow along with whatever the Pope has said or published without reservation. Cardinal Ottaviani eventually accepted the new Mass in 1970, but had someone proposed it to him in 1950 he probably would have put it on the Index of Prohibited Books. The SSPX should regularize, but ultimately their problem isn't disobedience or a lack of faith; it's that they can't believe the Pope isn't Pius XII.

Concerning Bishop Morerod: this situation reminds me of when the famed Byzantine scholar Robert Taft, SJ visited my eastern rite parish. At one point he openly admitted to concelebrating Divine Liturgy with Orthodox clergy on the anniversary of his own ordination and supplimented this fact with the statement "If you have a problem with it then tell Rome, I'm not afraid of them because I write their stuff." Fr Taft also supports the "renewal" of the Roman rite in the last half century and believes the SSPX to be in schism. Fascinating times.

Irene said...

The piece you sited by Met. Hilarion Alfeyev is nothing compared to this letter written by a Metropolitan of Greece to a local Roman Catholic Bishop. From 2007

Stephen said...

Jason C, on the contrary, Orthodox do indeed consider themselves to be THE Church of Christ, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Right prayer, right belief, unchanged, that which was revealed by the Lord, proclaimed by the Apostles and guarded by the Fathers. Why indeed, then, would they not hurl anathemas at heresy, as Catholics used to do?

GQ Rep said...

I was not even born when John Paul II became Pope, but I remember in highschool seeing a photo of John Paul II on the ski slopes wearing a white jacket, sun viser, and white cap. Even in 10th grade, having seen photos of the great Popes Pius XI (1922-39) and Pius XII (1939-58) on the sedia Gestatoria, the photo of JP II on the ski slopes was to me at least, embarassing. This Bishop Morerod looks ridiculous too in this photo.

So are his views allowing the likes of Calvinists and Lutherans to use Catholic facilities (including Churches), but not the SSPX.

Tom said...

Romanitas said..."Tom, just "adhering" to whatever Rome is doing or a current Pope's program without even considering its merits put us in our current state.

"In fact, something conservative and liberal Catholics have in common is that they both think the Pope and some agglomeration of Roman dicasteries dictate the faith and thoughts of the Church.

"Danger since mid last century has been that good souled Catholics have been too willing to follow along with whatever the Pope has said or published without reservation.

"Cardinal Ottaviani eventually accepted the new Mass in 1970, but had someone proposed it to him in 1950 he probably would have put it on the Index of Prohibited Books."

I realize that as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness) said years ago, the Papacy isn't an absolute monarchy.

Pope Benedict XVI recognized that Traditional-minded priests who refused to offer the Novus Ordo did not act out of bounds as, for example, conservatives had claimed.

That doesn't mean that His Holiness will tolerate the labeling of the Novus Ordo as "evil".

At any rate, the Pope has recognized that Catholics have the right to remain attached to Holy Tradition.

If they were to fall in line with Pope Benedict XVI, the SSPX would be free to offer the Traditional Roman Mass and keep their parishes free of "wreckovationists," and such novelties as altar girls, EMs, Communion in the hand and the ususal "suspects" in that regard.

The SSPX would be free to engage in respectful dialogue in regard to certain Vatican II Era teachings that they deem difficult to reconcile to Holy Tradition.

The Pope doesn't ask Traditionalists to become mindless machines who believe that the Pope and some agglomeration of Roman dicasteries dictate the faith and thoughts of the Church.

Tom

Tom said...

Romanitas said..."Concerning Bishop Morerod: this situation reminds me of when the famed Byzantine scholar Robert Taft, SJ visited my eastern rite parish.

"At one point he openly admitted to concelebrating Divine Liturgy with Orthodox clergy on the anniversary of his own ordination and supplimented this fact with the statement "If you have a problem with it then tell Rome, I'm not afraid of them because I write their stuff."

"Fr Taft also supports the "renewal" of the Roman rite in the last half century and believes the SSPX to be in schism. Fascinating times."

I am familiar with Archimandrite Robert Taft, not to mention the "I am Orthodox in Communion with Rome" (Zoghby Initiative).

I wasn't aware that he had concelebrated with the Eastern Orthodox.

However, in 2004 A.D., Father Taft urged Greek Catholics in Ukraine to simply establish their own patriarchate, even if Rome rejected said action.

www.natcath.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/taft.htm

When asked what if Rome refused said action, Father Taft declared:

"I told them (Greek Catholics), take two steps. First, publicly declare the patriarchate.

"Second, request Roman recognition, but even if it doesn’t come, refuse all mail that doesn’t come addressed to the patriarchate.

"Don’t just pretend, but really do it. The Secretary of State sends a letter addressed to the archbishop? We don’t have any archbishop, we’ve got a patriarch.

"Send it back unopened, “addressee unknown.”

But he is a "full communion" priest. If Bishop Fellay urged such disobedience...well, we know the consequences that he would face.

Nevertheless, Bishop Fellay is free to adhere to the Pope's offer to obtain to regularization.

Tom

Tom said...

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said..."That's irrational and ultimately convinces me that the SSPX are right, they are marked with the sign of Our Lord, the sign of persecution and 'scandal'."

I am leery whenever the Society's bishops, priests and/or its supporters employ the above argument to prove that the Society is "right".

Any group (any person) on earth could justify its policies based upon the claim that they (a group) is "persecuted" and vilified.

Liberals and modernists are vilified by the SPPX. Said folks could argue..."see how the Society of Saint Pius X attacks us? That proves that our positions against them are correct."

People who favor Communion in the hand could argue..."the SSPX rages and rails against us. Therefore, we must be right."

SSPX bishops and priests attacked Popes Venerable John Paul II and Benedict XVI over Assisi.

Well, said Pope must be correct for that were bashed and trashed by the Society.

Law enforcement agencies "persecute" criminials. Criminals could use that to justify their actions.

Pope Paul VI must have been right to have foisted the Novus Ordo upon us as he has been persecuted by countless Traditionalists.

Yeah...let's be careful whenever we wish to determine that "X' organization (or person) "must be right" based upon the notion that said organization is "persecuted."


Tom

DisgustedWestern said...

"Example upon example of vicious anti-Cathlic declarations from the Eastern Orthodox could be cited as countless examples exist."

One can also say that example upon example of vicious anti-Orthodox declarations from Catholics could be cited as countless examples exist, especially in the blogosphere and in circles dedicated to the Gruner-type interpretation of Fatima.

From Fatima Crusader # 84 (year 2006), 15 years after the fall of Communism, we find this statement from Bishop Khoarai of Lesotho:

"There may be difficulties in other countries, but the devil is working, he is using Russia. Our Lady wants us to tackle the problem, the heart of which is Russia."

Tom said...

GQ Rep said..."I was not even born when John Paul II became Pope, but I remember in highschool seeing a photo of John Paul II on the ski slopes wearing a white jacket, sun viser, and white cap.

"Even in 10th grade, having seen photos of the great Popes Pius XI (1922-39) and Pius XII (1939-58) on the sedia Gestatoria, the photo of JP II on the ski slopes was to me at least, embarassing."

Certain Catholics attacked Pope Venerable John Paul II for his having worn a wrist watch.

Pope John Paul II's ski attire failed to "embarrass" me. I had that far more important things about which to have been embarrassed.

My sins, for example.

But a note to Bishop Moreod and, for that matter, future Popes:

How dare you enjoy God's creation. They, not you, determine whether you are permitted to engage in athletics.

For example, do not ski as they, not you, determine what is right and proper in regard to your lesuire/athletic time.

Tom

Elmer said...

It is an unfortunate fact that important leaders in the SSPX have been extremely imprudent in continuing to speak hatefully towards the Jews without qualification. This only encourages the conspiracy theories of Bishop Williamson to spread within their ranks. While I was shocked by the initial ban for them to celebrate Mass in churches by this decree, I can well understand the fear of providing a platform for such people to preach. TEACH THE FAITH! STOP this constant demonizing of the Jews!! Preach APOLOGETICS to the Jews instead, seek their conversion in a systematic presentation -- I've never heard them do that in any serious way. It is a disservice to the Church to insist upon the evils of the Jews and it has not helped anything. I'm so sick of them continuing to misspeak like that. What a MESS!

Trento said...

Does that mean Bishop Tissier de Mallerais can celebrate Masses in Bishop Morerod's diocese? From Wikipedia: "Bernard Tissier de Mallerais was never suspended a divinis, because he was ordained priest on June 29, 1975. The punishment of the Holy See hits priests ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre since July 1976 and a a divinis can never be retroactive"

Matt said...

I agree with Francis.

Take heed of the times. This is only the beginning, the superficial stuff before it gets really sick and twisted.

For those who truly believe in the Faith, take heart. While Cardinal Ratizinger, the Holy Father stated, "Believing Christians should look upon themselves as such a creative minority and... espouse once again the best of its heritage (i.e. Tradition?), thereby being at the service of mankind at large."

Fred Neal said...

Has anyone even considered whether SSPX priests or communities would even want to celebrate sacraments in +Morenod's churches? Flogging the Bishop online is one thing, but clarifying whether the SSPX would even avail itself of this option, were it presented to them, might be more productive. If the SSPX wouldn't even touch a diocesan church anyway, extending the invitation to them would be a waste.

New Catholic said...

Fred, ordinarily that would be correct. But there always are - and there are bound to be, in a diocese that covers four cantons, small shrines, basilicas, or pilgrimage places (as Notre-Dame de Bourguillon) that mean nothing to Protestants but are relevant to local Catholics. This decree forbids even the eventual use of such places (not the mere visit, but i.e. the celebration of Mass), since it provides no exceptions. In this sense, some bishops of France have been amazingly more welcoming to their (admittedly much more numerous) shrines than the Swiss Conference of Bishops.

Common Sense said...

Dear Tom,

I genuinely appreciate your goodwill, but that isn't enough. A good will must also be the right will. Look, Tom, what you find difficult to grasp is the fact that the SSPX is part of the Church. It acts like a living branch of the Church because at a timely moment it inherited the life of the Church. It has continuity, which is the gift of the Church. It is not the Church of its own accord, but due to the timeless essence of Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail and that the living branches would always remain. It is not and cannot be a parallel Church. The SSPX preserves all the substance which it has received from the Church. Its founding head was a worthy successor of the apostle. It doesn't matter what you say, you cannot bypass the fact that the Novus Ordo does not have either continuity or a precedent. It has all man-made ingredients and a barely perceptible divine presence. We as Catholics seem to be close and yet we are so far apart, because our mentalities are just so different, worlds apart. And the main reason is that, as one Trad observed, the Novus Ordo doesn't generate enough grace, and consequently it doesn't possess an awareness of wisdom. And where wisdom doesn't dwell, neither can God.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

Let me see if I can get my head around this confusing situation : Bishop Morerod welcomes de facto heretics to come and use consecrated Catholic churches in his diocese and to practise their utterly heretical services on/near consecrated altars, each one containing an authentic relic of a holy Catholic martyr, yet utterly forbids undoubtedly Catholic “schismatics” from the same right.

Belgian Catholic said...

So, the only problem with the SSPX is that on July 22, 1976, Abp. Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX, was suspended a divinis by Pope Paul VI: all public ministerial act was henceforth forbidden to him.

Why was Mgr. Lefebvre suspended? One of the main reasons was the letter dated 17 July:

22 July 1976
Notification of Suspension a Divinis

"The Holy Father has informed me that he has received from you a letter dated 17 July .In his eyes, it could not unhappily be considered satisfactory -on the contrary .I may even tell you that he is very distressed by the attitude to him shown in that document."

What did Mgr. Lefebvre ask Pope Paul VI?

17 July 1976
Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Pope Paul VI

Most Holy Father, deign to manifest your will to see the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ extended in this world,

by restoring the Public Law of the Church,
by giving the liturgy all its dogmatic value and its hierarchical expression according to the Latin Roman rite consecrated by so many centuries of use,
by restoring the Vulgate to honor,
by giving back to catechisms their true model, that of the Council of Trent.

So, Pope Paul VI was not 'happy' with these demands.... Strange...

lucas clover alcole said...

Tom, the fact that you are comparing the SSPX to criminals, liberals and modernists, tells me a little about your state of mind.

If you dislike the fact I use the 'sign of contradiction' test, then really blame Our Lord, the saints and countless theologians who have used it. Do not however caricature the position by absurd comparisons. It is clear that the people you compare the SSPX with would be justly persecuted or rather punished, clearly in our world and in the church today this does not happen.

PEH said...

The opinion of a theologian, even one as erudite as Fr. Morerod, is just that...an opinion. However, the holy father is the one person who could put this matter to rest, once and for all, by granting papal jurisdiction to the FSSPX for the celebration of the sacraments. That he refuses to do so, speaks far more eloquently than the opinions of anyone else in the Church. One wonders how he will explain himself before the Lord? Is this the role of the Good Shepherd?

Reluctant Pessimist said...

Gervase Crouchback writes,

"Here in Australia [the Orthodox] seem to be into sheep stealing … from other denominations.…"

We Catholics used to call that practice proselytism and thought doing it was, not merely admirable, but in accord with God's will. I thank Mr. Crouchback for giving me the proper conciliar, indeed anti-Morerodish, understanding of what separates us from our schismatic Orthodox brethren.

He also writes, "Perhaps [they do so] because they [again, those benighted Orthodox] are closely aligned with ethnonationalism rather than[,] as Christ wants us to be[,] transcultural[ism], cross-cultural[ism] and intracultural[ism]."

Hallelujah, Brother Crouchback! Preach the Word! One question, however: where in the Gospels does Christ say these things? Even in the latest totally hip revision of the NAB (the Newer-than-New American Bible) can I not find these words of comfort and moral uplift. I'm sure it's just my inattentiveness; so please help me out.

Wesley Winfield said...

Simply put: I don't think it's a question of SSPX 'coming round' to an argreement anymore but of Rome recognising that they have and continue to be wrong concerning the 'wonders' of VII.

Most importantly: even if an argreement were ever to take place, the SSPX do have real enemies within the Church, many of which would do everything in their power to hinder their work.

The prejudice towards SSPX is real and widespread among senior Church members. At the same time, it is also something that attracts me more and more to the SSPX cause. May God Bless their work!

Tom said...

lucas clover alcole said..."Tom, the fact that you are comparing the SSPX to criminals, liberals and modernists, tells me a little about your state of mind."

The fact that I did not compare the Society to criminals, liberals and modernists but that you claim that I did tells me a little about your state of mind.

I have followed the SSPX since their beginning. I have read many SSPX publications.

I accept Pope Benedict XVI's evaluation of the SSPX. The Society's priests are Catholic.

They are Catholic priests who are suspended a divinis. They do not exercise valid ministries within Holy Mother Church.

There are many good elements within the Society. There are sick and arrogant elements within the Society.

Pope Benedict XVI also declared that the Society is in grave danger of drifting from the Church.

His Holiness love the bishops and priests of the Society. He says that infortunately, they have an incomplete understanding of Holy Tradition.

Pope Benedict XVI desires strongly that the Society will enjoy peace with the Holy See.

The Society, should its priests overcome their errors, would benefit Holy Mother Church greatly in many ways.

I love my Catholic brothers and sisters within and attached to the Society of Saint Pius X.

I pray that they will do what you, I, the FSSP, ICK and orthodox believers always and everywhere have done:

That is, play by the Apostolic See's rules.

Sadly, unlike you, I and orthodox believers everywhere, the Society of Saint Pius X has granted themselves special status.

That is, they don't have to play according to Pope Benedict XVI's rules.

His Holiness has made clear to the Soceity that which they must do to obtain regularization.

Let us pray and hope that the SSPX follows, for example, the lead of the holy FSSP priests, who, in turn, adhere to Pope Benedict XVI's rules.

Tom

Tom said...

Wesley Winfield said..."The prejudice towards SSPX is real and widespread among senior Church members. At the same time, it is also something that attracts me more and more to the SSPX cause."

Your attraction to the SSPX comes with a degree of danger.

You are correct that widespread prejudice in regard to the SSPX exists among "senior Church members".

Some of the "prejudice" involved is a result of the SSPX's attachment to the TLM.

Some of the "prejudice" involved is that the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has declared that the SSPX holds to certain errors.

"Senior Church members," for example, should exhibit "prejudice" against such awful SSPX teachings as the Novus Ordo Mass, approved by the True Church, is a "poison" and Vatican II, approved by the True Church, promotes errors.

The only reason to find the SSPX attractive is that despite their incomplete understanding of Holy Tradition and certain errors that they promote, as Pope Benedict XVI has declared, they also promote orthodoxy.

They promote errors alongside orthodox teachings that the Apostolic See upholds.

We should find the good side of the Society attractive as that side consists of teachings that belong by right to the True Church.

Any other reason to find the Society attractive, such as the notion that "prejudice" exists against the Society, is dangerous as that kind of attraction is based more upon emotionalism and subjectivism.

That smacks of cultism.

To throw in with a group based upon emotionalism..."oh, poor, little group, you are persecuted by big, bad people" is dangerous.

As I noted in an earlier post, Yeah...let's be careful whenever we wish to determine that "X' organization (or person) "must be right" based upon the notion that said organization (or person) is "persecuted."

Prejudice exists against Islam. Should that spur us to find Islam attractive?

Let us find the Society attractive for the simple reason that despite their errors, they promote various teachings that belong by right to the True Church who is taught, governed and sanctified by Jesus Christ's Vicar, Pope Benedict XVI.

Tom

Alan Aversa said...

Charles Morerod, OP, said the SSPXers "divide the Catholic Church from the inside". So, they are inside the Church?

Bernard Tissier de Mallerais's L’étrange théologie de Benoît XVI, Avrillé, 2010, can be found in translation here: Faith Imperiled by Reason: Benedict XVI's Hermeneutics

And the SSPX harms "the reputation of the Church as seen from the outside"? What about idolatrous Novus (dis)Ordo, sodomite molester-priests? What about liturgical abuses? What about the Protestentation of the Mass? Etc.

Actually, Bp. Fellay didn't say "we simply say about this Mass that it is bad"; he said "it is evil."

A parent said...

Tom,

Grow up.

Common Sense said...

Dear Tom,

It is really magnanimous on the part of the host that he still lets you cruise about in your realm of oblivion.

Tom said...

Alan Aversa said..."Charles Morerod, OP, said the SSPXers "divide the Catholic Church from the inside". So, they are inside the Church?"

Yes. They are a Society of Catholic priests. Unfortunately, the SSPX bishops and priests are suspended a divinis and do not exercise legitimate ministries within the Church, according to Pope Benedict XVI.

His Holiness stated that "the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church."

"As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church," said Pope Benedict XVI.

His Holiness added the following dire assessment of the SSPX's future:

"Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? What would then become of them?"

Pope Benedict has presented the Society with the opportunity to obtain regularization and peace with the True Church.

Let us pray that the Society will do that which is required of each person who wishes to obtain peace and, if you will, regularization, with the Apostolic See.

That is, subject themselves to Pope Benedict XVI's rules.

You do that. I do that. FSSP priests do that. Each orthodox believer on earth does that.

Unfortunately, the Society has not done that.

Tom

Tom said...

Common Sense said..."Dear Tom, I genuinely appreciate your goodwill, but that isn't enough.

"Look, Tom, what you find difficult to grasp is the fact that the SSPX is part of the Church."

On this blog and elsewhere, I have always promoted the fact, particularly to folks who had claimed otherwise, that the SSPX is a Catholic society of priests.

They are Catholic. They are suspended a divinis. They do not exercise legitimate ministries within Holy Mother Church despite the reality that they are Catholic.
------------------------

"The SSPX preserves all the substance which it has received from the Church."

What true teachings that the Society promotes belong, of course by right to the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, as the Apostolic See has noted, the Society possesses an incomplete understanding of Holy Tradition and, unfortunately, promotes errors.
-----------------------------

"It doesn't matter what you say, you cannot bypass the fact that the Novus Ordo does not have either continuity or a precedent.

"It has all man-made ingredients and a barely perceptible divine presence."

I was there when the Novus Ordo replaced the TLM as the primary Mass of the Latin Church.

During the past 45 or so years, I have studied the history of the Novus Ordo.

I have read everything that I could in regard to the history of the Consilium, Archbishop Bugnini, the pre-Vatican II plans to destroy the Traditional Roman Mass...Father Gamber's writings...name it...I've read it.

The Traditional Roman Mass, as compared to the Novus Ordo, is by far stronger in teaching the Faith and instilling Catholic identity within the Faithful.

I have posted hundreds of such messages to Rorate. I am uncertain as to why you believed that I am, if you will, pro-Novus Ordo.

I have always stressed the "superiority" of the Traditional Roman Mass. What I have pointed out is that the Society cannot possibly expect to achieve regularized status when they label the Novus Ordo "evil" and, for that matter, declare that Vatican II contains errors.

The Apostolic See will never tolerate such talk from the Society or any person or Catholic group.

That is common sense. It is a pipe-dream to believe, as certain Traditionalists have promoted, that Pope Benedict XVI need simply to regularize the Society...to accept the Society as is.

Have such folks failed to note that the Holy Father has insisted that the Society promotes errors...that sick elements exist within the Society.

People expect His Holiness to then regularize the SSPX as is? That is nonsense.

Tom

Tom said...

Common Sense said..."Dear Tom, It is really magnanimous on the part of the host that he still lets you cruise about in your realm of oblivion."

I sense anger in your post. Why did you feel the need to veer from the discussion at hand to take a personal dig at me?

is it that I don't march in lockstep with your opinions? Yep. Therefore, it's frustration time. It is insult time.

Well, I understand. That is, unfortunately, one of our negative human traits.

Now, have I done anything that offended the host and/or disobeyed the rules of Rorate?

Please understand that I take seriously that I am a guest in this living room, Rorate Caeli, which is a Catholic home of sorts.

I have posted hundreds of messages to this blog. I don't recall as to ever having a post rejected here.

I keep my speech clean, here and everywhere. I play by Rorate's rules (I wish that the SSPX played by The Apostolic See's rules.). I am a Traditional Catholic.

I have never taken a dig at a poster. I thank Rorate for the opportunity to post my opinions here.

You are upset that I haven't marched in lockstep with your opinions. I understand the nature of your comment.

Pax!

Tom

Tom said...

A parent said..."Tom, Grow up."

Okay.

Top 5 signs that I have grown up.

5. I have reduced the amount of hours each week that I spend watching cartoons from 16 to 15.

4. It has been...oh...a good four days since I last purchased a Bugs Bunny coloring book.

3. This past Christmas, I asked for one...just one!...SpongeBob SquarePants toy.

2. I have once and for all ceased to believe in fairy tales. I have grown up, after all! Well, all except Pope Paul VI Imposter stories. I mean, check out the photos of his ears.

They really are different from the real Pope! It's all about them ears. I mean, check out them ears, man!

1. At Thanksgiving, I now sit at the adult's table. The card table is for kiddies. I sit at the adult table. And just like certain grown-ups here, whenever people across from me don't march in lockstep with my SSPX-related opinions, I throw mashed potatoes, peas and corn at them.

Now, I've grown up. Just like you.

Tom

Tradical said...

"Some of the "prejudice" involved is that the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has declared that the SSPX holds to certain errors."

I take exception to this item that Tom mentioned.

What errors does the SSPX hold? Given that their theological position, according to Dr. Lamont, is based upon the theological work and explanation that were held prior to the council?

Wesley Winfield said...

Dear Tom,

Good sides or bad sides within the Society, you cannot deny that their application of the faith is and continues to be a success when compared with the concicular Church, which, if you haven’t noticed, is in a complete state of anarchy! By their fruits you shall know them indeed. So let’s just cut all the nonsense about subjective and emotional reasoning – tradition works, modernism doesn’t! SSPX are right about VII and if that means remaining in an 'irregular situation' so be it.

Katsumoto said...

Tradical said:
"What errors does the SSPX hold?"

That's just it. The SSPX don't hold any errors. Yet, they are considered to be in an "irregular status" by the ordinary hierarchy.

Many mainstream clerics, however, not only hold profound errors, but promote them as good. And, yet, they are in "perfect communion" with the Holy See.

Seriously, this is really getting old.

Marsaili said...

Do the Calvinists, Lutherans and Orthodox who worship in these Catholic places refer to Rome as the Seat of the Anti-Christ, as Bishop Fellay has done? I think not.

Federline said...

Now if Long-Skirts could just post some of her delightful doggerel to add to the discussion!

Peter said...

Readers will be interested in this SSPX response:

http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/double_standard_of_ecumenism_2-5-2013.htm

Perhaps this should be separately posted as an update.

Tom said...

Tradical said..."I take exception to this item that Tom mentioned. What errors does the SSPX hold?"

Let's see...Ummm...oh, yeah. I had almost forgotten.

There is that, oh, little persky...well, monumental error, denounced, of oourse, by Holy Mother Church...you know...that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil!

What else? Oh, yeah. I had almost forgotten...Vatican II contains errors.

The last time that I had checked, The Apostolic See had denounced said SSPX teaching.

The Society has claimed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an unacceptable and overall unreliable source of the Catholic Faith as said catechism promotes "heretical ideas."

Conversely, in regard to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has declared that said catechism ""is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium...

"...a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion."

There you have it.

The Society has denounced as "error" this and that teaching of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Tom

Tom said...

Wesley Winfield said..."Dear Tom,
Good sides or bad sides within the Society, you cannot deny that their application of the faith is and continues to be a success when compared with the concicular Church, which, if you haven’t noticed, is in a complete state of anarchy!"

Dissension and vicious fighting have raged within the Society of Saint Pius X. Certain priests of the Society have, particularly of late, attacked and denounced SSPX leadership and the Society's overall direction.

Having followed the lead of certain priests and...ummm...a certain bishop...laymen attached to the SSPX chapels have also denounced the SSPX as having squandered Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre's work.

Other than that, and the fact that they are suspended a divinis and do not exercise legitimate ministries within the Church...

...and promote false teachings — examples: Novus Ordo is "evil"...Vatican II contains errors — that have been rejected with vigor by the Apostolic See...

...everything is fine and dandy within the Society.
-----------------------------

Wesley Winfield said..."By their fruits you shall know them indeed."

Uh-huh. Suspended a divinis. Now, please continue.

"So let’s just cut all the nonsense about subjective and emotional reasoning – tradition works, modernism doesn’t!"

That is true. The FSSP, ICK and additional groups and priests who offer the Traditional Roman Mass within Holy Mother Church and in full and wonderful peace and communion with Pope Benedict XVI attest to your statement.

"SSPX are right about VII..."

The One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church teaches that you are wrong.

The Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI teaches that you are wrong.

I should believe you over the solemn and sure teaching of the One True Church?

Nope. No way.

"...and if that means remaining in an 'irregular situation' so be it."

That is a pathetic, un-Catholic and dangerous statement as the Apostolic See has declared that Society is in danger of drifting away from Holy Mother Church.

I have great respect in many ways for the SSPX. I have defended the Society on this blog and elewhere against false statements.

But the Society teaches errors, according to the True Church.

The True Church teaches that the Society's priests are suspended a divinis and do not exercise legitimate ministries within the True Church.

In regard to the Rome-SSPX situation, the True Church is the true voice of Jesus Christ.

He who hears the True Church's Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI's voice in this matter, hears the voice of Jesus Christ.

Tom

Pat said...

Tom,

You'll recall that St. Augustine defined evil not as an active force, but the absence of good. What, then is good about the new rite and how exactly are major elements, such as the near-total lack of sacrificial language (the "Orate, fratres" is the only mandatory mention), the endless options which permit it to mean anything and look any which way ceremonially, the lack of a real offertory in which something is offered, and its de facto practice, which is abysmal, to be considered good? To say the Church believes the new Mass is great is a bit short-sighted. The Church speaks slowly and over long periods of time, with the very rare exception of direct and solemn pronouncements. I fail to see how the new Mass's virtues are an article of faith. It is a particular arrangement and series of prayers which lead up to an integral and essential part (the consecration), an arrangement that is at best mediocre compared to what preceded it.

As for the JP2 catechism, I think you will find priests in the Ecclesia Dei communities, dioceses, monasteries, and in the Eastern rites who would categorically reject such nonsense as (841) "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Go ahead and say "Holy Mother Church condemns this as an error" but can sincerely imagine St Pius V agreeing that a rite of Mass that mirrors Cranmer's BCP service is good or that a religion that wished to invade Catholic Europe and turn St Peter's in a stable has an active role in God's plans?

Lastly, to recall the frustrations of the late Dr Adrian Fortescue, there are successors to all 12 Apostles, many of them, and their legacy reaches over the centuries. We should strive to love and obey Benedict XVI, but we cannot lose sight of the Church's past or the state of its present just because the last few Popes have implemented a new pastoral and liturgical attitude that they insist is fine and dandy. Your reactions to people's comments here, and I say this in the spirit of charity and not in criticism, is a myopic hyper-obedience that would put a Jesuit in the year 1875 to shame!

Marsaili said...

Even though there are big problems in the SSPX, they have the Faith. All that matters is that they have the Faith, which is a traditionalist version of Sola Fide. Slightly different from that of Luther and Calvin, but basically still the same thing.

Stephen said...

Pat - Tom's position does have a certain consistency; if the reigning Pope says it, you must obey it. Call it myopic, call it simple, but it is pretty straightforward, and easily allows for the pronouncements of earlier Popes to be discounted - if not ignored all together.

In contrast to Tom's position relying on the authority of a reigning Pope, you offer no yardstick by which to measure anything. How do you judge what is and what is not "Catholic" without risking being a cafeteria Catholic?

Pat said...

Stephen,

Being "consistent" is fine, but it is about what one is being consistent that concerns me. Hyper-obedience was quite easy when the Pope was Pius X or Leo XIII, but the good inside the Church and the bad outside of it is less clear now, and no curial bureaucracy is keen on illuminating these matters much less correcting them.

I simply offer this belief which, I think to the best of my limited knowledge, is consistent with the Catholic faith (without using legal terminology) and with the writing of Cardinal Newman: doctrine and faith develop in their clarity and the Church judges ideas and devotions over time, Papal intervention being an exception rather than the norm. Time will judge the Novus Ordo Mass and the pastoral attitude birthed at Vatican II. I daresay though that this process has begun but will not be very engaged until all those who remember the Council have passed from this life. They, Benedict XVI included, are personally invested in the Council; it represents the Church they know, but not, perhaps, how the Church ought to be.

I do not think my position is "cafeteria" so please do not call it such, nor drop such derision, as some have, of being protestant. I am not advocating disobedience, nor am I advocating late 19th century ultramontanism. If I were to surmise my opinion of the vast array of views of Church authority today I would simply say "Every needs to calm down."

lucas clover alcole said...

Tom until you can acquire some intellectual honesty and read your own posts I will not respond to you. I tire of your endless ignorant sspx bashing, and frankly I advise everyone not to engage with you.

Tradical said...

Tom said ...

1. "...denounced, of oourse, by Holy Mother Church...you know...that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil!..."

2. "...Vatican II contains errors..."

3. "... the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an unacceptable and overall unreliable source of the Catholic Faith as said catechism promotes "heretical ideas."..."

4. "... Conversely, in regard to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has declared that said catechism ""is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium..."


Interesting points Tom. There is one slight problem with all this.

First the Vatican has noted that you can entertain these opinions as long as you are muzzled. (My paraphrase)

Second, I am not aware of any of these assertions of the SSPX have been given a theological censure.

If you are aware of formal theological censures having been issued that explain the error and its grade - it would be greatly appreciated.

FormerNeoCath said...

lucas clover,

I understand where Tom is coming from, because I used to be just like him, rabidly against the SSPX. I even turned down a possible college roommate because I discovered that he assisted at SSPX chapels. I embraced all the standard neocath charges against the SSPX: Protestant and all the rest.

Later I decided to actually do my homework. I began with the SSPX USA website and read many of the articles and FAQs there, including "Can Obedience Oblige Us to Disobey?", along with articles at The Remnant like "Gnostic Twaddle" and "Actions Speak Louder Than Words." Catholic Family News was also key.

I then read the books Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Iota Unum, One Hundred Years of Modernism, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, and others.

I then decided to go to an Ignatian Retreat conducted by the SSPX. I later went to another.

In short, I discovered that the SSPX is, simply, Catholic. They teach only what the Church, until Vatican II, always taught. No more and no less. It's only because of today's breakdown that they seem so radical.

Tom said...

FormerNeoCath said..." I understand where Tom is coming from, because I used to be just like him, rabidly against the SSPX."

Your statement is bizarre in that I have always defended the SSPX from their beginning...yep, I go back that far (and beyond)...I have read countless SSPX publications and received many blessings from their writings.

I do not, however, march in lockstep with their errors.

Examples:

The Society has declared that the Novus Ordo is "evil"...Vatican II contains errors...the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers heresies.

1. The One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has declared that the Novus Ordo is far from "evil."

2. The One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has declared that Vatican II does not contain errors.

3. The One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has declared that the Catechism of the Catholic Church "is a statement of the Church's Faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium...a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion."

I adhere to the teachings of the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and, therefore, must reject the above errors that the Society of Saint Pius X promotes.

By the way, to claim that I am against the Society rabidly is bizarre in that the thrust of this thread has been my defending the Society.

Certain posters have made it clear that a regularized Society would be forced to renounce certain unalterable teachings of the Faith, such as the teaching related to sodomy.

They believe obviously that the Society would crumble in the face of modernists.

Coversely, I praised the Society in that I have declared via numerous posts that Bishop Fellay and a regularized Society could be counted upon to promote the Apostolic Faith.

Unlike certain posters here, I am confident in the resolve of a regularized Society of Saint Pius X.

In a state of regularization, the Society of Saint Pius X would serve to bless us.

Again, your claim that I am against the Society rabidly is false and bizarre.

Tom

Tom said...

Tradical said..."Tom said...Interesting points Tom. There is one slight problem with all this.

"First the Vatican has noted that you can entertain these opinions as long as you are muzzled. (My paraphrase)."

I am not aware of your assertion —that "the Vatican" would muzzle the Society.

If you are aware of any formal declaration by the Apostolic See in regard to your claim, please post said information.

Thank you.

Tom

Tom said...

Tom said ...

1. "...denounced, of oourse, by Holy Mother Church...you know...that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil!..."

2. "...Vatican II contains errors..."

3. "... the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an unacceptable and overall unreliable source of the Catholic Faith as said catechism promotes "heretical ideas."..."

4. "... Conversely, in regard to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church has declared that said catechism ""is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium..."

Tradical said..."Interesting points Tom. There is one slight problem with all this.

"First the Vatican has noted that you can entertain these opinions as long as you are muzzled."

Tradical, please direct me to the Apostolic See's declaration(s) that permits Catholics to entertain the following:

1. That the "Ordinary Form" of Mass is "evil."

2. That Vatican II contains errors.

3. That the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which, according to the True Church, is "a sure norm for teaching the Faith," promotes heretical ideas.

If you are correct that "the Vatican" allows Catholics to "entertain" the above SSPX teachings, then I am surprised that Pope Benedict XVI has declared that the Society's priests are suspended a divinis and do not exercise legitimate ministries within Holy Mother Church.

Other than you, is there anybody on earth who is aware that the Vatican now permits us to "entertain" that the Novus Ordo is "evil", Vatican II teaches errors and the Catechism is linked to heresy?

You have a real news scoop.

Tom

Tom said...

Tradical, you claimed that "the Vatican has noted" that we are free to entertain the following opinions:

1. That the Novus Ordo Mass is evil.

2. That Vatican II contains errors.

For years, Bishop Fellay and the Society have claimed that the opposite is true.

Tradical, you have just transformed Bishop Fellay and the Society of Saint Pius X into liars.

So, what is it, Tradical? Has the Vatican noted that we may entertain opinions that denounce the Novus Ordo as "evil" and Vatican II as containing errors?

Or have Bishop Fellay and the Society of Saint Pius X told the truth in that the bishop and Society have maintained that "the Vatican" has insisted that one must hold that:

1. The Novus Ordo is holy, good and wholesome.

2. Vatican II is free of errors and is in continuity with Holy Tradition.

How about it, Tradical?

Tom

Tom said...

Pat said..."Tom, You'll recall that St. Augustine defined evil not as an active force, but the absence of good. What, then is good about the new rite and how exactly are major elements, such as the near-total lack of sacrificial language (the "Orate, fratres" is the only mandatory mention), the endless options which permit it to mean anything and look any which way ceremonially, the lack of a real offertory in which something is offered, and its de facto practice, which is abysmal, to be considered good? To say the Church believes the new Mass is great is a bit short-sighted. The Church speaks slowly and over long periods of time, with the very rare exception of direct and solemn pronouncements. I fail to see how the new Mass's virtues are an article of faith. It is a particular arrangement and series of prayers which lead up to an integral and essential part (the consecration), an arrangement that is at best mediocre compared to what preceded it.

As for the JP2 catechism, I think you will find priests in the Ecclesia Dei communities, dioceses, monasteries, and in the Eastern rites who would categorically reject such nonsense as (841) "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Go ahead and say "Holy Mother Church condemns this as an error" but can sincerely imagine St Pius V agreeing that a rite of Mass that mirrors Cranmer's BCP service is good or that a religion that wished to invade Catholic Europe and turn St Peter's in a stable has an active role in God's plans?"

I believe that compared to the Novus Ordo, the Traditional Roman Mass is the superior teacher of the Faith.

I believe that the Traditional Roman Mass, as compared to the Novus Ordo, conveys Catholic identity more powerfully.

I refuse, however, to march in lockstep with the SSPX's claim and error that the Novus Ordo is "evil."

The True Church teaches opposite the SSPX in that regard. Therefore, I embrace Holy Mother Church's teaching and reject the Society's error.

In regard to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has declared that said catechism is "a a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium....a sure norm for teaching the Faith."

Any declaration contrary to the above is against the True Church's teaching.

Therefore, I will throw in with Jesus Christ and his sure and certain teaching, which is offered by the True Church.

Pax.

Tom

Tom said...

Pat said..."Your reactions to people's comments here, and I say this in the spirit of charity and not in criticism, is a myopic hyper-obedience that would put a Jesuit in the year 1875 to shame!"

Thank you.

Yes, when it comes to Society of Saint Pius X's errors, I am more than happy to exhibit myopic hyper-obedience in regard to the correct teachings promoted by The Apostolic See.

I appreciate and support the many positive aspects that are found within the Society.

I have followed the Society from the beginning. I have read many SSPX books, articles and publications.

I have been blessed by the Catholic teachings that they have promoted over the years.

Any SSPX teaching that is true is, of course, Catholic and belongs by right to the True Church.

Conversely, I reject the Society's errors. The Apostolic See has declared that SSPX priests are suspended a divinis and do not exercise valid ministries within Holy Mother Church.

I don't march in lockstep with the Society. They are not the be all and end all in regard to the Traditional Roman Mass and Holy Tradition.

Additional societies of Traditionalists, who exercise valid ministries within Holy Mother Church as they enjoy total peace with Pope Benedict XVI, exist and bless me and countless Catholics.

Yes, when it comes to truth and error, I stand in myopic hyper-obedience to the Holy See.

I recognize that I have the right, for example to throw in with the TLM, which I do.

I believe that the Church is in a state of collapse. The liturgical revolution has shipwrecked Novus Ordo parishes.

The Faith is in danger of dying in vast areas of the world, according to Pope Benedict XVI.

None of that means, however, that I will march in robotic lockstep with the erros that the SSPX has promoted for years.

I refuse to embrace the Society's errors.

Tom